1
CREAM: 70 days of flight from 2 launches in Antarctica
E. S. Seoa,b
, H. S. Ahn a, P. Allison
c, M.G. Bagliesi
d, L. Barbier
e, A. Barrau
f, R. Bazer-Bachi
g, J. J. Beatty
c,
G. Bigongiarid, P. Boyle
h, T. J. Brandt
c, M. Buénerd
f, J. T. Childers
i, N. B. Conklin
j, S. Coutu
j, L. Derome
f,
M. A. DuVernois i, O. Ganel
a, J. H. Han
a, J. A. Jeon
k, K. C. Kim
a, M. H. Lee
a, L. Lutz
a, A. Malinin
a, M.
Mangin-Brinet f, P. S. Marrocchesi
d, P. Maestro
d, A. Menchaca-Rocha
l, S. Minnick,
m S. I. Mognet
j, S.
Namk, S. Nutter
n, I. H. Park
k, N. H. Park
k, A. Putze
f, R. Sina
a, S. Swordy
h, S. Wakely
h, P. Walpole
a, J. Wu
a,
J. Yangk, Y. S. Yoon
b, R. Zei
d, and S. Y. Zinn
a
aInst. for Phys. Sci. and Tech., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
bDept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
cDept. of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA
dDept. of Physics, University of Siena and INFN, Via Roma 56, 53100 Siena, Italy
eNASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
fLaboratorire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Grenoble, France
gCentre d’Etude Spatiale des Rayonnements, UFR PCA - CNRS - UPR 8002, Toulouse, France
hEnrico Fermi Institute and Dept. of Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
iSchool of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
jDept. of Physics, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
kDept. of Physics, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, 120-750, Republic of Korea
lInstituto de Fisica, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico
mDept. of Physics, Kent State University Tuscarawas, New Philadelphia, OH 44663, USA
nDept. of Physics and Geology, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
Abstract
The Cosmic Ray Energetics And Mass balloon-borne experiment has been launched twice in
Antarctica, first in December 2004 and again in December 2005. It circumnavigated the South Pole three
times during the first flight, which set a flight duration record of 42 days. A cumulative duration of 70 days
within 13 months was achieved when the second flight completed 28 days during two circumnavigations of
the Pole on 13 January 2006. Both the science instrument and support systems functioned extremely well,
and a total 117 GB of data including 67 million science events were collected during these two flights.
Preliminary analysis indicates that the data extend well above 100 TeV and follow reasonable power laws.
The payload recovered from the first flight has been refurbished for the third flight in 2007, where as the
payload from the second flight is being refurbished to be ready for the fourth flight in 2008. Each flight will
extend the reach of precise cosmic-ray composition measurements to energies not previously possible.
1. Introduction
The Cosmic Ray Energetics And Mass (CREAM) experiment (Seo et al., 2004) was designed and
constructed to measure cosmic ray elemental spectra using a series of ultra long duration balloon (ULDB)
flights. The goal is to extend direct measurements of cosmic-ray composition to the energies capable of
generating gigantic air showers which have mainly been observed on the ground, thereby providing
calibration for indirect measurements. The instrument has redundant and complementary charge
identification and energy measurement systems capable of precise measurements of elemental spectra for Z
= 1 - 26 nuclei over the energy range ~1011
– 1015
eV. Precise measurements of the energy dependence of
elemental spectra at the highest of these energies, where the rigidity-dependent supernova acceleration limit
could be reflected in a composition change, provide a key to understanding cosmic ray acceleration and
propagation.
A relatively large number of measurements of primary cosmic-ray energy spectra have been made with
rather good precision at energies up to ~ 1011
eV. Above this energy the uncertainties are large, although
there have been some pioneering measurements (Muller et al., 1991; Asakimori et al., 1998; Apanasenko et
al., 1999). Whether or not protons have the same spectrum as heavier nuclei is still unclear, especially in
view of recent reports from ATIC-1 (Ahn et al., 2006) and ATIC-2 (Wefel et al., 2005). Their different
2
spectral behavior could be interpreted as evidence for different types of sources/acceleration mechanisms
for different elements (Biermann, 1993). A bend in the proton spectrum has been reported to occur near 2
TeV (Grigorov et al., 1971), whereas a different study indicated a bend around 40 TeV (Asakimori et al.,
1993). These roll-off energies for protons are 1 - 2 orders of magnitude below the “knee” seen in the all-
particle spectrum. An overall trend of flatter high energy spectra for heavy elements was indicated in the
data compiled by Wiebel-Sooth et al. (2006) and Horandel (2003).
Secondary cosmic rays produced from the nuclear interactions of primary cosmic rays with the
interstellar medium hold a key to understanding the cosmic-ray propagation history. In order to obtain the
spectra at the source where cosmic rays are accelerated, the measured spectra must be corrected for
propagation effects. Simultaneous measurements of the relative abundances of secondary cosmic rays (e.g.
B/C) and the energy spectra of primary nuclei will allow determination of cosmic-ray source spectra at
energies where measurements are not currently available.
The instrument was designed to meet the challenging and conflicting requirements to have large
enough geometry factor to collect adequate statistics for the low flux of high energy particles, yet stay
within the weight limit for space flight. Redundant and complementary detector systems coupled with the
ULDB capability being developed by NASA now promise high quality measurements over an energy range
that was not previously possible.
2. Long Duration Balloon Flights
The CREAM payload was successfully launched from McMurdo, Antarctica on 16 December 2004,
and it subsequently circumnavigated the South Pole three times before being terminated on 27 January 2005
(Seo et al., 2005). Both the distance travelled (~14,000 nautical miles) and the time duration (41 days 21
hours 36 minutes) were records for a long duration balloon (LDB) flight. The second launch occurred on 16
December 2005 exactly 1 year after the first launch. That flight circumnavigated the Pole twice before it
was terminated on 13 January 2006. A cumulative duration of 70 days within 13 months was achieved
when the second flight completed its 28 day journey. As shown by the trajectory of the first flight in Fig.
1a, the balloon drifted toward the Pole, made a tight circle around latitude 85°S, and stayed south of
McMurdo for the second circumnavigation, although it gradually spiraled northward. The balloon drifted
outward significantly during the third circumnavigation, so the flight was terminated as soon as the balloon
came back to the landmass after crossing the water. The payload landed on the high plateau 410 nautical
miles northwest of McMurdo station. The recovery crew camped at the landing site to disassemble the
(a) (b)
Fig.1. Balloon trajectory of (a) Flight-1 from 16 December 2004 to 27 January 2005, and (b) Flight-2
from 16 December 2005 to 13 January 2006. Both flights were launched from McMurdo. Red curves
represent the first circumnavigation, green curves the second, and blue the third circumnavigation.
3
instrument so it would fit inside the Twin Otter recovery plane. As shown by the trajectory of the second
flight in Fig. 1b, the balloon made a larger circle than the first flight. The balloon was visible when it came
back to McMurdo after the first circumnavigation. It spiraled out northward and spent a few days over the
water during its second circumnavigation. The flight was terminated when it came back to North of
McMurdo, and the payload landed 290 nautical miles northwest of McMurdo station. It was much closer
than the landing site of the first flight, so its recovery was much easier.
The CREAM flight operation was unique in several aspects: (1) CREAM was the first long duration
balloon (LDB) mission to transmit all the prime science and housekeeping data (up to 85 kbps) in near real-
time through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) via a high-gain antenna, in addition to
having an onboard data archive. To fit the data into this bandwidth, science event records excluded
information from channels that had levels consistent with their pedestal value. This 'data sparsification'
reduced the average high energy shower event record size by nearly 95%. (2) The instrument was shipped
to Antarctica fully integrated to minimize the flight preparation time. The crew made the payload flight
ready within 2 weeks after arrival in Antarctica. (3) The science instrument was controlled from the
science operation center at the University of Maryland throughout the flight after line-of-sight operations
ended at the launch site. Primary command uplink was via TDRSS, with Iridium serving as backup
whenever the primary link was unavailable due to schedule or traversing zones of exclusion. The nearly
continuous availability of command uplink and data downlink allowed rapid response to changing
conditions on the payload (e.g., altitude dependent effects) throughout the flight. See Yoon et al. (2005)
and Zinn et al. (2005) for more details about the flight operation and the data acquisition system.
The balloon float altitude was between 125,000 and 130,000 ft (38 and 40 km) throughout most of the
flight, as shown in Fig. 2. The corresponding average atmospheric overburden was only ~3.9 g/cm2. The
diurnal altitude variation due to the Sun angle change was very small, < 1 km, near the Pole, i.e. at high
latitude, although it increased as the balloon spiraled outward to lower latitudes. The temperature of the
various instrument boxes stayed within the required operational range with daily variation of a few °C,
consistent with the Sun angle.
All of the high energy data ( > ~ 1 TeV) were transmitted via TDRSS during the flight, while the lower
energy data were recorded on board. A total of 60 GB of data including ~ 4 × 107 science events were
collected from the first flight and 57 GB including ~ 2.7 × 107 science events were collected from the
second flight.
3. CREAM Instrument
The CREAM instrument consists of complementary and redundant particle detectors to determine the
charge and energy of the high energy particles. They include a Timing Charge Detector (TCD), a Transition
Radiation Detector (TRD) with a Cherenkov Detector (CD), and a calorimeter module comprised of a
Silicon Charge Detector (SCD), a carbon target, scintillating fiber hodoscopes (S0/S1 and S2), and a stack
of tungsten plates with interleaved scintillating fiber layers. A photograph of the CREAM instrument flown
on the first flight and a schematic view of the configuration are shown in Fig. 3. See Seo et al. (2004) for
(a) (b)(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Altitude of the balloon (black curve) and the temperature of 3 instrument boxes, pink for TCD,
green for SCD, and blue for calorimeter, for (a) Flight-1 and (b) Flight-2.
4
the instrument details. Multiple charge measurements with the TCD, CD, SCD, and S0/S1 layers of
scintillating fibers accurately identify the incident particles by minimizing the effect of backscattered
particles from the calorimeter. The TCD is based on the fact that the incident particle enters the TCD before
developing a shower in the calorimeter, while the backscattered particles arrive several nanoseconds later. A
layer of scintillating fibers, S3, located between the carbon target and the tungsten calorimeter provides a
reference time. The SCD is segmented into pixels to minimize multiple hits of backscattered particles in a
segment.
The carbon target induces hadronic interactions in the calorimeter module, which measures the shower
energy and provides tracking information to determine which segment(s) of the charge detectors to use for
the charge measurement. Tracking for showers is accomplished by extrapolating each shower axis back to
the charge detectors. The hodoscopes S0/S1 and S2 provide additional tracking information above the
tungsten stack. Tracking for non-interacting particles in the TRD is achieved with better accuracy (1 mm
resolution with 67 cm lever arm, 0.0015 radians). The TRD determines the Lorentz factor for Z > 3 nuclei
by measuring transition x-rays using thin-wall gas tubes. The TRD and calorimeter, the latter of which can
also measure the energy of protons and He, have different systematic biases in determining particle energy.
The use of both instruments allows in-flight cross-calibration of the two techniques and, consequently,
provides a powerful method for measuring cosmic-ray energies. As illustrated by the example of a ~8 TeV
Oxygen event in Fig. 4, the instrument functioned well during the flight. The trigger aperture is ~2.2 m2sr,
and the highly segmented detectors comprising the instrument have about 10,000 electronic channels.
The CREAM ballooncraft, referring to all hardware below the attachment point to the mobile launch
vehicle, shown in Fig. 5, is an integrated assembly of the science instrument and support systems. Unlike
most balloon payloads, the science instrument was not pressurized. The main support system was the
Command and Data Module (CDM) which was developed by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) (Jones et al., 2005). This is in contrast to typical
LDB payloads which utilize the Support Instrumentation Package (SIP) provided by the Columbia Scientific
Balloon Facility (CSBF). The 40 MCF-lite balloon carried a total suspended weight of 6,000 lb, including
~2,500 lb for the science instrument, ~400 lb support structure, and ~1,100 lb of ballast for the first flight.
The suspended weight for the second flight was 5,676 lb including ~1,200 lb ballast. The large amount of
TCD
Upper TRD
Lower TRD
Cherenkov
SCD S0/S1
S3
Target 1Target 2
Command
DataModule
71 inch (~1.8 m)
CalorimeterS2
TCD
Upper TRD
Lower TRD
Cherenkov
SCD S0/S1
S3
Target 1Target 2
Command
DataModule
71 inch (~1.8 m)
TCD
Upper TRD
Lower TRD
Cherenkov
SCD S0/S1
S3
Target 1Target 2
Command
DataModule
TCD
Upper TRD
Lower TRD
Cherenkov
SCD S0/S1
S3
Target 1Target 2
TCD
Upper TRD
Lower TRD
Cherenkov
SCD
TCD
Upper TRD
Lower TRD
Cherenkov
SCD S0/S1
S3
Target 1Target 2
Command
DataModule
71 inch (~1.8 m)
CalorimeterS2
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. CREAM Instrument (a) A photograph of the instrument flown on Flight-1, and (b) a schematic
view of the instrument configuration.
5
ballast played an important role for the zero pressure balloon to keep its high altitude throughout the flight,
especially during the third circumnavigation when it drifted northward. The science instrument power
consumption was ~400 W. Both the science instrument and the flight support systems were developed for
nominal 100-day ULDB missions.
The science return depends critically on the exposure factor, since the cosmic-ray flux decreases
rapidly as energy increases. The detectors were designed to maximize acceptance of the instrument within
the weight constraints for balloon flights. In order to maximize the collecting power, it is desirable to fly as
long as possible and as frequently as possible. The instrument and support systems were demonstrated to
operate for a long duration during the two already-completed flights. The same instrument cannot be flown
in consecutive years due to the time required for recovery, return to the laboratory, and refurbishment, so
multiple copies of detectors were (or are being) constructed to take advantage of flight opportunities as
frequently as possible.
The performance of the instruments flown on the first two flights can be found elsewhere: TRD/TCD
performance (Wakely et al., 2006; Coutu et al., 2005, 2006), Calorimeter performance (Lee et al., 2005;
Marrocchesi et al., 2006), SCD performance (Park et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2005; Park et al., 2006).
Fig. 5. CREAM ballooncraft at the launch site, Willams Field in Antarctica, while the balloon is being
inflated.
Fig. 4. An example event from the flight data; A cosmic-ray Oxygen nucleus with estimated
energy ~8 TeV entered the instrument to give a large pulse height (blue box at the top) in the
TCD, a clear track in TRD (red squares), a large signal in the SCD (blue squares) and a well-
defined shower in the calorimeter (red squares).
6
4. Data Analysis
The main science event trigger was for
high energy particles that deposited significant
energy in the Calorimeter (hereafter called the
“CAL” trigger), or for heavy nuclei identified
from the large pulse height in the TCD
(hereafter called the “ZHI” trigger). The CAL
trigger was set to require at least 6 consecutive
layers with a threshold of ~60 MeV. This
provided nearly 100% efficiency for showers
from protons above 3 TeV (estimated from a
Monte Carlo study). Figure 6 shows a
preliminary result of the calorimeter energy
deposit distribution for events recorded with a
CAL trigger for Flight-1 in red squares, Flight-
2 in blue triangles, and their sum in black
circles. The energy deposit was reconstructed
using a preliminary set of calibration constants
from a beam calibration, LED-based HV gain
corrections, and flight measurements of the
ratios between different optical ranges. A
deposit of about 3.2 along the horizontal scale in Fig. 6 corresponds to incident energy ~1 TeV, which is
close to the calorimeter threshold. This energy deposit gives a quick check of the energy spectrum, which
in this case shows both a reasonable power law and that we have data extending well above 100 TeV. The
energy scale is still preliminary with about 10 – 20 % uncertainty. The beam test data taken in various
configurations of the calorimeter (i.e., with and without lead bricks in front of and behind the calorimeter
module to ensure significant signals at the top and bottom layers), are being compared with Monte Carlo
simulations to minimize systematic uncertainties.
The TCD also provided a “ZLO” trigger, which corresponds to light elements below the ZHI threshold.
The ZHI threshold was set above He, Z > 2, for the Flight-1 and above protons, Z > 1, for Flight-2. The
calorimeter energy deposit distributions for the “CAL and ZLO” triggered events are shown with red dashed
lines in Figs. 7a and 7b, which correspond to mostly protons and helium for Flight-1 and mostly protons for
Flight-2. The calorimeter energy deposit distributions for the “CAL and ZHI” triggered events are shown
with blue dotted lines in Figs. 7a and 7b, which correspond to mostly Z ≥ 3 for Flight-1 and mostly Z ≥ 2 for
Fig. 6. Preliminary calorimeter energy deposit
distribution for Flight-1 (red squares) Flight-2 (blue
triangles) and sum of both (black circles).
(a) (b)(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Comparison of preliminary energy deposit distributions from (a) Flight-1 and (b) Flight-2. Red
dashed lines represent “CAL and ZLO” trigger, blue dotted lines represent “CAL+ZHI” trigger, and
black solid lines for CAL triggered events.
7
Flight-2. The CAL triggered events shown with black solid lines in Figs. 7a and 7b have similar steepness
(energy dependence) for both flights, implying a consistent all-particle spectrum. The “CAL and ZLO”
triggered events are steeper than “CAL and ZHI,” indicating that protons have a steeper spectrum than
heavy nuclei. Since the calibration is still in progress, the energy scale is still uncertain. In addition, the
events in Fig. 7 include background without proper event selections. Consequently, the power law fits do
not accurately represent the spectral indices for either protons or heavy nuclei. Only the qualitative relative
difference is meaningful at this stage of the analysis. Nevertheless, this raises interesting questions such as
(1) Is the difference due to a steeper proton source spectrum? (2) Are the high energy protons lost
preferentially due to an acceleration limit? (3) Is there flattening of heavy nuclei spectra due to weaker
energy dependence in the escape length? (4) Is this an artifact due to backscatter, leakage, or something else
in the instrument?, etc.? An event reconstruction algorithm to handle backscattered particles, as well as
corner-clipping, side-entering, and side-exiting events is being developed, and the related systematic
uncertainties are being assessed.
For the charge measurements, analysis of the SCD data begins with tracking information for incident
cosmic rays obtained from the TRD and/or the calorimeter. For ZHI triggered events, tracks that are well
reconstructed in the TRD are extrapolated to the plane of the SCD. Reconstruction errors in the track angle
and offset are considered in defining the search region in the SCD when looking for a matched hit. After
subtracting pedestal values, the SCD pixel with the maximum signal in the search area is selected as a
candidate. The SCD signal is then corrected for the track angle with respect to the sensor plane. Using the
correlation between the reconstructed charge signals from the SCD and the Cherenkov counter, relativistic
particles are selected. The resulting SCD charge histogram for ZHI triggered events is shown in Fig. 8. The
“CAL and ZLO” triggered events are analyzed similarly by projecting the reconstructed shower axis in the
calorimeter to the SCD. The resulting SCD charge histogram for “ZLO and CAL” triggered events is
Fig. 8. Preliminary SCD charge histogram for ZHI triggered events.
Fig. 9. Preliminary SCD charge histogram for ZLO triggered events.
8
shown in Fig. 9. Charge peaks for each element from Z
= 1 to 28 are clearly separated in the SCD with
excellent linearity. Note that the relative abundances
shown in these figures are not corrected for detector
efficiencies or acceptance.
A major advantage of balloon experiments is that
instruments can be improved as flights are repeated.
One significant improvement for Flight-2 over Flight-1
is that 2 layers of SCD were used for the Flight-2.
Without many corrections, a cross plot of the two
independent charge measurements from both layers
indicates clear separation of each element, as shown in
Fig. 10. Excellent charge resolution can be obtained
for Flight-2 by requiring consistency between the two
charge measurements. See Marrocchesi, et al. (2006).
5. Status Summary
The CREAM instrument landed almost intact
after termination of the flight. Even the fragile 380µ
thick silicon sensors were well protected. However,
some parts of the instrument had to be cut to go
through the Twin Otter recovery plane door. For
example, the honeycomb pallet had to be cut into
two pieces, the calorimeter optics were destroyed,
and some tungsten plates were damaged, etc. The
calorimeter optics re-assembly shown in Fig. 11 was
one of the major refurbishment efforts. The fully
refurbished calorimeter shown in Fig. 12 was
calibrated at the CERN SPS in October 2006.
A new addition to the CREAM instrument for
Flight-3 is a Cherenkov imager optimized for charge
measurements. Figure 13 shows this Cherenkov
Camera (CherCam) being assembled. It consists of a
silica aerogel Cherenkov radiator plane and a photon
detector plane with an array of 1600 1-inch diameter
photomultiplier tubes (PMT’s). The planes are
separated by a 10 cm ring expansion gap to ensure
that most Cherenkov photons are collected in 8 tubes
surrounding the tube hit by the incident particle.
Since upward moving particles will be absorbed in
the radiator, the CherCam will provide efficient
discrimination against backscattered particles. With
CherCam, in addition to the TCD based on timing,
and the SCD based on pixellation, the CREAM
instrument implements virtually all possible
techniques to minimize the effect of backscatter on
charge measurements in the presence of the
calorimeter. The investigation is striving to achieve
charge measurements with the highest possible
accuracy.
Another major improvement for Flight-3 will be
a redundant Science Flight Computer, which
Fig. 10. A scatter plot of top SCD vs. bottom
SCD.
Fig. 11. A photograph of glued calorimeter
optics including scintillating fiber ribbon,
light mixer, and clear fiber bundle being
cured in the assembly jig.
Fig. 12. A photograph of the refurbished
calorimeter.
Fig. 13. A photograph of CherCam being
assembled for Flight-3.
9
constituted a potential single point failure for the previous flights. Two computers will be accommodated
with a USB interface. New software developed for the USB interface was successfully tested during the
2006 accelerator calibration of the calorimeter. A schematic view of the CREAM ballooncraft
configuration for Flight-3 is shown in Fig. 14.
The CREAM instrument was designed and constructed to meet the challenging requirements of ULDB
flights of about 100 days. The science instrument, support systems, and operation scheme were successfully
tested beyond the nominal 60-day minimum ULDB mission during its first two flights. With excellent
particle charge resolution, redundant measurements with complementary detectors, and relatively large
collection factor, each CREAM flight will extend the reach of precise cosmic-ray composition
measurements to energies not previously possible.
4. References
Ahn, H. S., Seo, E. S., Adams, J. H., et al., The energy spectra of protons and helium measured with the
ATIC experiment, Advances in Space Research, 37(10), 1950-1954, 2006.
Apanasenko, A. V., Beresovskaya, V. A., Fujiet, M., et al., Primary cosmic ray spectra observed by
RUNJOB, The RUNJOB collaboration, Proc. 26th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Salt Lake City, 3, 163-166,
1999.
Asakimori, K., Burnett, T. H., Cherry, M. L., et al., Cosmic ray composition and spectra: (1) Protons, Proc.
23rd Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Calgary, 2, 21-24, 1993.
Asakimori, K., Burnett, T. H., Cherry, M. L., et al., Cosmic-ray proton and helium spectra: Results from the
JACEE experiment, Astrophys. Journal, 502, 278-283, 1998.
Biermann, P. L., Cosmic Rays IV: The spectrum and chemical composition above 104 GeV, Astron. &
Astrophys., 271, 649-658, 1993.
Coutu, S., Ahn, H.S., Allison, P. et al., Performance of the transition radiation detector and the timing
charge detector in the first flight of the CREAM instrument, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3,
393-396, 2005
Coutu, S., Ahn, H.S., Allison, P. et al., Design and performance in the first flight of the Transition Radiation
Detector and Charge Detector of the CREAM balloon instrument, Proc. of the 10th Pisa Meeting on
Advanced Detectors, in press, 2006.
Grigorov, N. L., Gubin, Y. V., Jakovlev B. M. et al., Energy spectrum of primary cosmic rays in the 1011
to
1015
eV energy range according to the data of Proton-4 measurements, Proc. 12th Int. Cosmic Ray
Conf., Tasmania, 5, 1746-1751, 1971.
CDM
TCD
Calorimeter
SCD
Solar Arrays
TDRSS HGA
CherCam
CDM
TCD
Calorimeter
SCD
Solar Arrays
TDRSS HGA
CherCam
Fig. 14. A schematic view of the CREAM ballooncraft configuration for Flight-3.
10
Horandel, J. R., On the knee in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays, Astroparticle Phys. 19(2), 193-220,
2003.
Jones, W.V., Pierce, D., Gregory, D. et al., Ultra Long Duration Ballooning Technology Development,
Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3, 405-408, 2005.
Lee, M. H., Ahn, H. S., Allison, P. et al., Performance of the CREAM calorimeter module during its first
flight of 42 days, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3, 417-420, 2005
Marrocchesi, P.S., Ahn, H.S., Allison, P. et al., Preliminary results from the second flight of CREAM, Adv.
in Space Res., submitted, 2006.
Müller, D., S. P. Swordy, P. Meyer et al., Energy spectra and composition of primary cosmic rays,
Astrophys. J., 374, 356-365, 1991.
Park, I. H., Ahn, H.S., Allison, P. et al., The first flight measurement with the CREAM Silicon Charge
Detector, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3, 341-344, 2005.
Park, N. H. Ahn, H.S., Allison, P. et al., The First Flight of the CREAM Silicon Charge Detector, J. of
Korean Physical Society. 49(2), 815-818, 2006.
Seo E. S., Ahn, H. S., Beatty, J. J. et al., Cosmic Ray Energetics And Mass (CREAM) balloon project, Adv.
in Space Res., 33/10, 1777-1785, 2004; http://cosmicray.umd.edu/cream/cream.html.
Seo, E. S., Ahn, H. S., Allison, P. et al., New observations with CREAM, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf.,
Pune, 10, 185-198, 2005.
Wakely, S. P., Ahn, H. S., Allison, P. et al., First measurements of cosmic-ray nuclei at high energy with
CREAM, Adv. in Space Res., submitted, 2006.
Wefel, J.P , Adams, J.H., Ahn, H.S., et al., Energy spectra of H and He from the ATIC-2 experiment, Proc.
29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3, 105-108, 2005.
Wiebel-Sooth, B., Biermann, P. L., Meyer, H., Cosmic Rays VII. Individual element spectra: prediction and
data, Astron. & Astrophys., in press, 2006.
Yang, J., Ahn, H.S., Allison, P. et al., Performance of the CREAM Silicon Charge Detector during its first
flight, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3, 345-348, 2005.
Yoon, Y. S., Ahn, H.S., Allison, P., et al., Flight operations during the first CREAM Balloon Flight, Proc.
29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3, 429-432, 2005.
Zinn, S.Y., Ahn, H.S., Allison, P., et al. The data acquisition software system of the 2004/2005 CREAM
experiment, Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Pune, 3, 437-440, 2005.
5. Acknowledgements
This work is supported by NASA grants in the US, by the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology in
Korea, by INFN in Italy, and by IN2P3 in France. The authors thank NASA/WFF, Columbia Scientific
Balloon Facility, National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs, and Raytheon Polar Service
Company for the successful balloon launch, flight operations, and payload recovery.
6. Figure Captions
Fig. 1. Balloon trajectory of (a) Flight-1 from 16 December 2004 to 27 January 2005, and (b) Flight-2 from
16 December 2005 to 13 January 2006. Both flights were launched from McMurdo. Red curves
represent the first circumnavigation, green curves the second, and blue the third circumnavigation.
Fig. 2. Altitude of the balloon (black curve) and the temperature of 3 instrument boxes, pink for TCD, green for SCD, and blue for calorimeter, for (a) Flight-1 and (b) Flight-2.
Fig. 3. CREAM Instrument (a) A photograph of the instrument flown on Flight-1, and (b) a schematic view of the instrument configuration.
Fig. 4. An example event from the flight data; A cosmic-ray Oxygen nucleus with estimated energy ~8 TeV entered the instrument to give a large pulse height (light blue box at the top) in the TCD, a
clear track in TRD (red squares), a large signal in the SCD (blue box) and a well-defined shower in
the calorimeter (red squares).
11
Fig. 5. CREAM ballooncraft at the launch site, Willams Field in Antarctica, while the balloon is being inflated.
Fig. 6. Preliminary calorimeter energy deposit distribution for Flight-1 (red squares) Flight-2 (blue triangles) and sum of both (black circles).
Fig. 7. Comparison of preliminary energy deposit distributions from (a) Flight-1 and (b) Flight-2. Red dashed lines represent “CAL and ZLO” trigger, blue dotted lines represent “CAL+ZHI” trigger, and
black solid lines for CAL triggered events.
Fig. 8. Preliminary SCD charge histogram for ZHI triggered events. Fig. 9. Preliminary SCD charge histogram for ZLO triggered events. Fig. 10. A scatter plot of top SCD vs. bottom SCD. Fig. 11. A photograph of glued calorimeter optics including scintillating fiber ribbon, light mixer, and clear
fiber bundle being cured in the assembly jig.
Fig. 12. A photograph of the refurbished calorimeter. Fig. 13. A photograph of CherCam being assembled for Flight-3. Fig. 14. A schematic view of the CREAM ballooncraft configuration for Flight-3.
Top Related